It’s been fifteen years now since the deadliest attacks on U.S. soil in the nation’s history killed over three-thousand people but the families of 9/11 victims may be one step closer to justice. The normally useless House of Representatives has passed a bill allowing the families of victims of terrorist attacks to sue sponsor nations. This won’t sit well with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the despotic hellhole from which fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers came from. The Saudis already threw a tantrum earlier this year by threatening to pull billions of dollars in investments from American markets if Congress dared to pass such legislation. The prospect of the House of Saud’s threat throwing markets into calamity in an election year led Emperor Obama to issue a veto threat rather than damage Hillary’s chances.

But continued pressure over the “28 pages” finally led to the release of a redacted version of the long suppressed portion of the joint intelligence report 9/11. As advertised, the hidden material indeed seemed to implicate members of the Saudi regime in providing support to at least two of the hijackers. One name in particular that stuck out like the proverbial turd in a punch bowl was that of former Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan aka Bandar Bush.

As reported by The Hill “House unanimously passes bill to allow 9/11 lawsuits against Saudi Arabia”:

The House on Friday passed legislation allowing the families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia in U.S. courts, days before the 15th anniversary of the terrorist attacks.

The legislation passed unanimously by voice vote, to thunderous applause.

The bill, which passed the Senate unanimously in May, now heads to President Obama’s desk, where its future is uncertain.

The White House has hinted strongly it will veto the measure. Obama has lobbied fiercely against it, arguing it could both strain relations with Saudi Arabia and lead to retaliatory legislation overseas against U.S. citizens.

But lingering suspicion over Saudi Arabia’s role in the 9/11 attacks and pressure from victims’ families made the bill a popular bipartisan offering on Capitol Hill.

The bill’s popularity puts the president in a delicate position. Supporters are hoping Obama will be leery of expending political capital he desperately needs during the lame-duck session.

The president is hoping lawmakers will pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement and a criminal justice reform measure and confirm Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.

If Obama does choose to veto the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, supporters believe that they have the two-thirds majority needed to override him — a first during his presidency.

“I think we easily get the two-thirds override if the president should veto,” Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who introduced the bill in the Senate, said when the bill cleared the upper chamber in the spring.

“We have serious concerns with the bill as written,” a White House official said Wednesday.

The House passage of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) is less about doing the right thing than it is cynical politicking of the worst type. Every one of the worthless bitches and bastards are up for reelection in November and the symbolism of moving the bill forward right before the anniversary of the attacks will help tamp down the anger of the voters. Still, it’s passage is a damned good thing regardless of the motivation of Congress.

Now it’s up to Obama to either sign it or stomp on it with his promised veto.

Advertisements